Dame Cicely Saunders, Founder of Modern Hospice Movement, Has Died

Via Wesley J. Smith, the Telegraph reports that Dame Cicely Saunders has died. She founded the modern hospice movement that sought to integrate principles of faith in managing pain for the dying:

Cicely Saunders believed in the importance of allowing patients to control their own treatment, and recognised the need to work closely with families of the terminally ill. The wards of St Christopher’s were light and airy and often teeming with children and pets.
…
Again there was a short, passionate relationship restricted to brief meetings in the ward and ending with his death: “I loved him very much,” she recalled. “He taught me what it was like to be dying and to be bereaved; he showed me the achievement of a good death, that as the body becomes weaker, so the spirit becomes stronger.”
…
Though the philosophy underlying St Christopher’s was Christian, it welcomed patients of any persuasion or none. Cicely Saunders noticed that those who coped best always had a shining faith, but that atheists often died as peacefully as Christians. The people with the most problems were those who had not sorted out their ideas. Clergymen, oddly, and the affluent, often turned out to have the most difficulty.

Albertans Annoyed, Not Alienated

In today’s National Post (subscription required), George Koch and John Weissenberger respond to Canada West Foundation’s Roger Gibbins’s suggestions for how Alberta should proceed in Canada.

Their central point is that Gibbins starts off on the wrong foot by using the language of “alienation,” instead of the more appropriate language of “annoyance”:

By Gibbins’ account, and many others of late, Western “alienation” amounts to mere perception, paranoid fantasy or selfish ingratitude.

In fact, real events shaped our Weltanschauung: Funding of the CPR using tax-free grants of the West’s land and minerals (still exploited today); the National Policy and tariff walls that beggared Western farmers and townsmen for decades; regulated energy prices and export controls; foreign investment restrictions; the National Energy Program; slashing of grain transport subsidies while billions was lavished on Quebec; the CF-18 maintenance contract; Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord; and more recently, the gun registry, HRDC, Adscam, Shawinigate and Kyoto.

All have involved either attacks on the West’s economy and the liberties of Westerners, or waste and corruption harming all of Canada, but using mostly Albertans’ money. Today, the economic “imbalance” amounts to an annual net transfer of more than $10-billion.

That’s what drives Albertans’ present-day annoyance at our lack of national influence. And by the way, it is annoyance, not “alienation” — a term implying we were once an integral part of the Canadian centre, and that we dream only of climbing back into the gentle womb of central Canada. We never were, and today we don’t want to “come in from the cold,” as Gibbins put it. Our message is simple: Quit sabotaging our way of life, and stop wasting our money.

I agree wholeheartedly. Central Canada is simply not the “gentle womb” that Alberta seeks to return to. The whole language of “alienation” bespeaks a gnostic dream of exiles in the wasteland who yearn to return to the source of purity and truth. Using the language of “alienation” for Albertans is about absurd as using it to describe the anger of the American colonists. Anyone who’s read thepolitic.com recently, or ever, will know that your scribes don’t subscribe to such b.s.

Here’s my previous post on Gibbins’s efforts to bring Alberta “in from the cold.”

The Perversion of Animal Rights Language

Via James Kushiner at Touchstone, this article from the Seattle Times (warning: very disgusting content) on a man who was killed while doing something he should never, ever, ever do with a horse.

Rather than comment on the degradation of the human person (after all, he wasn’t doing anything illegal!), police and activists are now concerned because there are smaller animals like sheep and chickens on his farm. Moreover, it turns out his farm is popular among people who like to do the sorts of thigns he never, ever, ever should’ve done with a horse.

Kushiner concludes:

I find the logic in the article revealing: a push to ban bestiality because it is cruel to animals? Well, fine, I mean, yes, ban it by all means; but isn’t it just a little degrading and corrupting of human society, if we even remember anymore what it means to be human? Those ruled by appetite will see it turn into a god that consumes them whole.

Alberta’s Anthem

In my recent blog on the Live 8 concert, I noticed that Neil Young sang Ian and Sylvia’s “Four Strong Winds” as his opener. Very touching. I also suggested it as Alberta’s national anthem.

Fellow thepolitic.com scribe J. Franklin takes friendly issue with my suggestion by arguing that a true anthem for Alberta would “should be written from the perspective of someone, or something, that derives from this province.”

After surveying several candidates, including tunes by Stan Rogers, Big Sugar, Gordon Lightfoot, and Wilf Carter (plus k.d. Lang, as suggested by one of his commentators), Franklin nominates “Short Native Grasses (Prairies of Alberta)” by Corb Lund and His Hurtin’ Albertans. Incidently, he provides a link detailing Big Sugar lead Gordie Johnson’s frustrations with his Ontario-based record company that refused to produce their song, “All Hell for a Basement” because it was about Alberta, and thus too “regional” for Ontario and Quebec tastes (though songs about the Maritimes don’t seem to be a problem).

Franklin makes a good point that Alberta’s song should be written from the perspective of a local instead of from an outsider (though you can’t get much more Albertan than Tyson). I disagree on two points:

1) Alberta is the place where outsiders have arrived. While it’s an earthy place, it’s young and, despite the efforts of 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation Albertans, there’s nothing chthonic about Alberta identity. We’re all newcomers.

2) “Four Strong Winds” is about what endures. It’s a homecoming song as much as it’s a song from the perspective of an outsider.

So I stick by my nomination for “Four Strong Winds” as Alberta’s song.

I invite readers, especially Albertans, to nominate theirs on our comment page. While you’re at it, check out the list that Franklin considers in his post.

Red Ken, Churchill Ken, Now Oedipus Ken

Ken Livingstone, socialist mayor of London, got rave reviews for his speeches after the London bombings, including ones from conservatives.

David Gelernter in Jewish World Daily writes that such praise is misplaced. Livingstone’s previous actions and speeches only promoted terrorist violence:

London’s leader, Ken Livingstone, eloquently condemned the recent terrorist bombings. But in the past, he never seemed too concerned about terrorists murdering Israelis. The tale of Livingstone’s ambivalence is a sordid kind of Greek tragedy.

Last year, he welcomed a violently Jew-hating Muslim preacher to London. In so doing, he became a silent partner of Islamic terrorism �?? which has now turned against his own city. Today, he is an updated Oedipus Rex, accessory to a horrible crime of which he himself is a victim.
…
Last year, Mayor Livingstone welcomed Egyptian cleric Sheik Yousef Qaradawi â€??? the “Theologian of Terror” â€??? to London. The sheik has called suicide bombings “heroic operations of martyrdom” and has urged Muslims to “destroy the aggressive Jews.” Livingstone called the sheik a man of “moderation and tolerance.” In an Op-Ed piece, the former editor of London’s Asharq al Awsat Arabic-language newspaper begged to differ: “When it comes to political matters, Sheik Qaradawi represents the utmost degree of extremism.”

Livingstone sounds like a psychologically manipulative husband who causes distress for his wife, but then “saves the day” when the inevitable crisis occurs.

Alberta Coalbed Methane

Today’s National Post reports that Trident Exploration of Calgary, along with some partners, will move forward on a coalbed methane project 120km northwest of Edmonton. This appears huge:

Closely held Trident Exploration Corp. and its partners are moving forward with the Mannville coalbed methane project — the largest prize in a sector expected to produce more gas than Canada’s Mackenzie Delta.

The company, a partner in the play with senior oil and gas producer Nexen Inc. and an American Indian tribe, the Southern Ute, called yesterday’s decision “historic.”

In a report to clients earlier this year, FirstEnergy Capital Corp. analyst Steven Paget likened it to “a milestone comparable to the first commercial project in the Athabasca oilsands.”

The Mannville play, located 120 kilometres northwest of Edmonton, is estimated to contain as much as 170 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Al-Qaeda as Death Cult Revisited: Captain’s Quarters v. Lee Harris

Captain’s Quarters provides a lengthy rebuttal to Lee Harris’s argument, noted here, that al-Qaeda understands itself to be engaged in a “blood feud.” He much prefers Harris’s earlier argument about al-Qaeda’s “fantasy ideology,” whose acts must be understood as gnostic theatrics that are disconnected with reality, and not analogous to the later essay’s seeming “Hatfield v. McCoy” argument.

Read CQ’s entire post.

I agree that Harris’s “fantasy ideology” is more accurate. It certainly fits with my reading of Islamicist ideologues like Sayyid Qutb. It also fits with statements that al-Qaeda leaders have made about their goals.

CQ expands his argument by advancing the thesis that al-Qaeda is a “death cult”:

I think it quite possible that the leaders of the jihadis are actually death cultists; perhaps they believe that their bizarre version of Allah grew weak from hunger, and that is “what went wrong,” to respond to Lewis. In this scenario, by sacrificing mass numbers of people, the militant Islamist leaders believe they feed Allah, and he grows strong. Perhaps he will then respond by reaching forth his hand to crush the infidels, restore the Caliphate, and expand the ummah to blanket the world. Alternatively, perhaps the leaders believe that Allah is angry that they have not been killing infidels and apostates, as he ordered them to do… and if they kill enough, Allah will be mollified and again lead them to supernatural victory.

Perhaps. But CQ’s “death cult” argument is in fact too “rational” and contradicts the “fantasy” element of the al-Qaeda ideology. What makes it fantastical, which CQ misses (as does Harris) is that the leaders (and influencing intelligentsia like Qutb) make notoriously circular arguments and assertions about the future that are unverifiable. Consider Qutb’s “milestones”: he wants a vanguard of pious Muslims but at all points in his argument he disclaims any standards by which one can articulate what a pious Muslim does (except jihad, which Qutb turns into the 6th pillar of Islam). Instead, Qutb tells his readers that Islam is a religion of praxis and that it’s truth gets revealed in the actions of the pious.

See the circle? The pious tell the followers what Islam is about, and what one counts as pious is what the pious tell them.

This is closer to what the “fantasy ideology” is really about. For more details, take a look at Barry Cooper’s book, The New Political Religions, An Analyis of Modern Terrorism, which treats the “jihadists” in terms of “secondary reality.”

However, both of Harris’s arguments, as well as CQ’s “death cult” analysis to a degree, have explanatory power. I think CQ’s argument might explain a certain level of al-Qaeda activist, but not its highest leaders. I’m skeptical bin Laden really believes he’s feeding energy to Allah. I suspect the only energy he’s interested in is his own. The leaders use theatrics to awe their followers, and they likely impress themselves with them.

But one needs to consider how they use circular arguments when they appear to justify themselves, but in fact simply justify their own dreamworld.

Children and Same-Sex Marriage

Margaret Somerville explains in today’s National Post that the new definition of marriage, when it comes to raising of children, takes power away from parents and gives it to the state.

The new law, Bill C-38, implements that change by redefining parenthood from natural parenthood to legal parenthood — from an institution defined by biology, to one defined solely by law.

New reproductive technologies (NRTs) raise difficulties in relation to children’s rights. Opposite-sex couples have used these technologies since their inception, but as an exceptional intervention to treat infertility, not as the norm. The focus that same-sex marriage has placed on these technologies has alerted us to previously unrecognized ethical issues — since same-sex couples can be expected to resort to them as a matter of course.

What the law previously treated as an exception to the norm of biological parents, it now treats as the norm. Biological parents no longer have any status in law. Legal parenthood replaces it. What the state gives (legality), it can take away.

She details the ways that this new definition throws a monkey-wrench into laws governing sperm and egg donations, the rights of adopted children to know their biological parents (they’re losing this right, despite international norms moving the other way), pressures by gay activists to overturn bans on paying surrogate mothers for their services, and, finally, the general sense of alienation of “genetic orphans” who are losing the right to know their biological heritage.

Deciding that marriage is about contract rather than genesis, our society wants to cut off its members from previous generations. As Edmund Burke might say, “typical liberals.” But it’s also dangerous, especially when one considers the elimination of rights of families as well as the powers these moves give to the state.

Somerville’s argument accords with some of the things I’ve been pointing out of late (see here).

The Political Assassination of Gurmant Grewal

Gurmant Grewal is being accused, though no one dare say the word, of fraud. At the very least, the intimation is that he is in violation of electoral legislation for not tendering receipts for monies donated to his campaign. CBC’s story the night before last (July 12) never bothered looking at reporting about the dates on the cheques in connection to the legal electoral regime that existed at the time (Update: see here for Terry Milewski’s TV clip). CBC, like much reported elsewhere, are acting as though the legal framework governing elections in Canada has been the same for ever. That is simply not so. And yet, Terry Milewski, supposedly a senior and experienced reporter, failed to inform the public of such circumstances (Milewski is interviewed by CBC Radio in Vancouver here).

In its July 11 web report, all CBC claims is that one of the cheques was deposited in January 2004. Although there is the issue of a few other cheques, no dates are provided for them, no allusion to the new legislation coming into effect that January, but they do write:

The Elections Act has strict rules about campaign donations. Every donor has to get a receipt.

Milewski said the same thing in his report. This is at best disingenuous, and, at worst dishonest, because it fails to inform about crucial details of the story and about the context. It is also wilfully unfair. The law does not apply retroactively. The question of one cheque deposited in January (and likely donated the year before posits, at best, a grey area regarding the tendering of tax receipts). Put it this way, if Grewal had issued tax receipts for all of those cheques donated in 2003, he would now be under investigation for issuing receipts that were not required by law, and there would be accusations, charges and hints that he was trying to cheat the state by issuing bogus receipts. This is crucial because in many ways it betrays the motivations behind the accusations.

Joe Volpe, the Minister of Immigration, concocted bogus charges against Grewal about immigration bonds, and then, in violation of all rules of ethics and Grewal’s rights, he publicised the matter with the clear intent to smear the Tory MP. The charge was a set up to make Grewal more likely to talk to the Liberals, who had already selected him as a target of bribery by Tim Murphy. They singled out Grewal on cold mathematical calculations: one set of bribing talks would potentially yield two votes.

Then the tape affair surfaced, about which there is not much to be said at the moment. There may be more tapes, it is being said, and it would be wise to wait until more is known. But the tapes and resulting accusations against Liberals are likely now the source of Grewal’s newer troubles. Since then, he has been accused of violating security laws at the Vancouver airport for trying to find a parliamentary peer to take an envelop to Ottawa for him. The media made a circus out of the whole thing, and they are still calling the envelop a package, suggesting something illicit. After that, came allegations about violation of immigrations law upon Grewal’s entry into Canada, casting doubt about the legitimacy of his entry and therefore of his citizenship. If his citizenship is called into question, then so does the legitimacy of his tenure as a Member of Parliament. And finally, we have the latest about the donations detailed above.

All of these, and to a large extent the tapes can be included, there have been allegations, investigations, and big waves without much substance to the accusations. With the exception of the tapes issue, they have been largely inflated or exaggerated charges, mishandled on purpose, twisted language (an envelop is not a package), questions unasked by senior reporters, and so on. It seems like an awful lot of hot air, and it seems like an awful lot of attention to one man over such short period of time. Even if Grewal had done all the things that the Government has claimed, it is at least suspicious that it would all come out practically at once. Millions and millions have been defrauded by Liberals, and on account of a grey area over one cheque, there is another scandal. If the cheque affair smells fishy, as one of the donors called it, the attention the government has given to Grewal lately smells like a whole fishing boat.

This is not to exonerate Grewal a priori. I am convinced that Grewal has made more than a few key and serious errors of judgement over these things, but they hardly equate to the conspiracies of the governing party to steal from Canadians to give to their friends and correligionists. Asking people to write cheques to the MP, even when all is above board, is at least unseemly; it is an imprudent thing to do, even if he did not violate the Elections Act then. And if it is found that he mishandled money, he should pay accordingly.

That still does not bear the wilful misreporting and mishandling of information (Update: One of the complainants about receipts is a current member of the executive in Ujjal Donsanjh’s Liberal Party riding association: SDA). John Reynolds has suggested that there is some sort of Liberal vendetta going on because of the tapes. Vendetta is my choice of words, not Reynolds, but it is the most appropriate considering what we have heard coming out of the Gomery Inquiry. We are witnessing the political (public) assassination of a Canadian citizen by the government in power, aided an abetted by the media. With media complicity, let’s not forget, the Liberals attempted to destroy Brian Mulroney in the 1990s over the Airbus allegations. If they can do it to a former prime minister, they can do it to a recently-arrived immigrant MP who is, shall we say, prudentially-challenged. Think about what they could to an ordinary citizen like you and me, if they believed that you crossed them.

In the smearing of Grewal, the Liberals win three prizes in the process:

1. The political assassination is likely irreversible. When Joe Volpe withdrew his accusations about the immigration bond incident, it was never directly reported, and it showed up in one single line at the bottom of a reportt in the Globe. The damage is done.
2. Grewal’s reputation will stick to the Tories for a while. The tape affair showed as much with a willing media looking to promote their pet mantra that all politicians are the same. I am betting that if and when Grewal gets cleared of these newly-trumped charges, it will not get the attention that the accusations have received. If all politicians are corrupt, then we may as well keep the nice Liberals because the other guys are so scary.
3. The descent of the Tories will typically signify some ascent for the Liberals at the polls. The Liberals, with the help of media, have successfully implanted in the minds of Canadians that Grewal is a corrupt man. But the greater price is to be found in the long-term strategy: one and potentially the two BC seats occupied by the Grewals will go to the Liberals. Grewal won his Newton-North Delta seat in 2004 by the slim margin of 520 votes. I doubt that Grewal will recuperate from all the accusations and insinuations well enough to win the seat again.

The cold calculation that Liberals applied to the bribery project resurfaces, if it ever went away. If you destroy Gurmant Grewal’s reputation, you also undermine Nina Grewal. You get two for the price of one.

Cross posted from Civitatensis

Solberg Responds to Adam Radwanski

In an obnoxious column last Saturday, National Post’s Adam Radwanski criticized Monte Solberg for being too “negative” on Canada.

Solberg responds here.

His response is well worth the read, but I want to highlight his conclusion, which is one of the most elegant statements I’ve heard from a politician for a long time:

Trust me Adam, being sanguine is just a gentle treason that will slowly and surely smother anything worth keeping in this country. Indifference, not criticism, is Canada’s real enemy.

“Gentle treason.” I like that.

« Previous Page — Next Page »